(NC)
Charlotte Observer [Charlotte NC]
August 30, 2024
By Virginia Bridges
Nearly five years after the General Assembly passed landmark legislation allowing lawsuits for decades-old child sex abuse claims, North Carolina’s Supreme Court is set to consider challenges that have left hundreds of plaintiffs in legal limbo.
Dusty McKinney will be watching the scheduled Sept. 18 Supreme Court hearings, which will determine whether he and hundreds of others can sue people they accuse of abusing them and their employers.
McKinney and two other East Gaston High wrestlers filed a lawsuit against the Gaston County Board of Education. The board had received numerous complaints about wrestling coach Garry Scott Goins’ physical and sexual abuse, but dismissed them after minimal investigation, leaving other children vulnerable to his unsupervised access to them in the 1990s and 2000s, the lawsuit says.
McKinney reporting the abuse resulted in Goins being convicted in criminal court in 2014 of 17 related charges and sentenced to 34 years in prison, he said.
Despite the jarring testimony about the coach and related complaints, it was McKinney who was shunned by some of his former teammates, he said. He was also left without any means to hold responsible those who could have stopped the abuse, said McKinney, who is 38 and now lives in Georgia.
When the SAFE Child Act was passed, he thought he might finally have his chance.
“It was almost like something that was going to be too good to be true,” said McKinney, an officer who has served 18 years in the U.S. military.
The SAFE Child Act, unanimously adopted by state legislators on Oct. 31, 2019, allowed victims of child sex abuse to file lawsuits in 2020 and 2021 against their perpetrators and the organizations who employed them.
McKinney’s was one of about 250 lawsuits filed under the SAFE Child Act revival window with more than 450 defendants demanding damages for physical and emotional trauma that followed child abuse by employees of many institutions. They include the Roman Catholic dioceses in Charlotte and Raleigh; Boy Scout councils across the state; and the YMCA’s national and regional councils.
The lawsuits also name about two dozen school boards, including one claim each against the Durham and Charlotte-Mecklenburg boards. Multiple claims were filed against the Wake board as well.
North Carolina law and many other states now recognize research that shows coming to terms with child sexual abuse can take many years, with many survivors only able to come forward as adults. According to one study, the average for men and women to report child sex abuse in institutions was 52.
However, attorneys representing the Gaston County Board of Education, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and United Methodist Church reject that delayed civil court claims are legal.
Their arguments in court filings raise questions about the revival window’s constitutionality, whether it allows claims against employers or just perpetrators and if individuals who have already unsuccessfully sued can revive their legal claims.
The Gaston Board of Education, along with other defendants, contend the window is stripping North Carolina residents of their vested rights protected by the state constitution since 1776. Specifically, once a claim has expired or the court has ruled on a case, it can’t be revived, they argue.
These lawsuits also burden organizations that are helping today’s children with the need to fight emotionally charged, decades-old claims, they contend.
“Upholding the Revival Window would shift the costs of addressing decades-old claims onto today’s children, and the hard-working men and women who are trying to help those children,” wrote Elizabeth L. Troutman, who represents the Gaston County Board of Education.
So far, plaintiffs have received mixed rulings from lower courts. In two cases set to go before the Supreme Court, for example, trial judges ruled against plaintiffs while the Court of Appeals ruled in their favor.
If the Supreme Court decides the revival window is barred by the state constitution, it would be a blow for all plaintiffs.
Here are the five cases scheduled to be debated before the North Carolina Supreme Court on Sept. 18.
Case 1: McKinney, et al. versus Goins, et al.
Legal question: Is the revival window unconstitutional under the North Carolina constitution? If judges rule the window is unconstitutional, then the decision will likely end the other challenges set to follow.
Plaintiffs: Three former East Gaston High School students filed a lawsuit in 2020 demanding financial damages from the Gaston County Board of Education and a former wrestling coach, Goins, convicted of statutory rape and other crimes in 2014 related to his abuse of students.
Defendants: The state constitution guarantees that once a claim has expired it can’t be revived, stripping people of their vested rights since the founding of the state, they argue. Such a change sets a dangerous precedent of reversing expired claims in other categories. It could destroy the stability and predictability that organizations need to conduct business and bring massive increases in insurance premiums.
Case 2: Cohane versus The Home Missioners of America, et al.
Legal question: Whether the SAFE Child Act revival window only applies to abusers or to enabling institutions as well.
Plaintiff: Gregory Cohane claims that Al Behm, a lay Catholic brother no longer affiliated with the church, sexually abused him while Cohane was approximately 17- to 21-years-old. He is seeking damages against Home Missioners of America, Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and Al Behm.
Defendants: The law only opens the window “for child sexual abuse” meaning civil suits can be only filed against perpetrators. They argue that those “related” to child sexual abuse isn’t included in the revival window, therefore shielding employers and institutions from suits.
Cases 3 & 4: Individuals versus the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte
Legal question: Does the SAFE Child Act allow cases that were previously litigated and dismissed to be revived?
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs described as John Doe and John Doe 1K sought help as children from two different priests and were repeatedly sexually assaulted, court filings allege. Lawsuits filed in 2011 were dismissed in 2014 and 2015 as time barred. The two men filed lawsuits against the diocese again under the two-year revival window.
Defendants: These cases should be dismissed because plaintiffs can’t revive cases that had been previously litigated and dismissed. The SAFE Child Act revives claims against predators not their employers, and the revival law is unconstitutional.
Case 5: Fore versus Western N.C. Conference of the United Methodist Church, et al.
Legal question: Did the conference and others receive proper notice on the plaintiff’s successful motion to receive unredacted investigative records on abuse allegations?
Plaintiffs: Lisa Biggs Fore claims her parents sexually abused her in the 1970s while they all lived at The Children’s Home in Winston-Salem, where her parents worked. Fore reported the alleged abuse at age 17 to officials in Rockingham County, according to the lawsuit. Under the SAFE Child Act, Fore in 2021 filed a lawsuit alleging the conference and The Children’s Home negligently supervised her parents and other actions that harmed Fore.
Defendants: Fore filled a motion requiring the conference and home to provide investigative records on all sexual abuse claims, which a judge granted. Fore didn’t properly notify the conference and the home on the motion.